Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Anarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).
QuoteCapitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.QuoteAnarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).
I am an anarcho capitalist. Or a capitalist anarchist. So thpppt.
Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.
...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions. I'm not in favor of other terms, either. I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.
...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions. I'm not in favor of other terms, either. I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.
But I don't care. At all. I'm not a salesman for anarcho-capitalism.
Also, those aren't my definitions.
...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions. I'm not in favor of other terms, either. I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.
But I don't care. At all. I'm not a salesman for anarcho-capitalism.
Also, those aren't my definitions.
You're missing the point. Don't sell anarcho-capitalism. Sell the concepts not the words. As for the definitions, I don't have a problem with them, just see the futility of selling them. Sure, amongst libertarians, it may have some value, but in general, there's no use clinging to terms--any terms.
hayenmill: No.
(See also my thread on this issue (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=30732.0).)
Communists can twist terms like "free enterprise" to fit within their political system.
Capitalism is the only term that explicitly recognizes individual rights (aka one's "capital").
... exactly, and why should we let socialists define what capitalism is and isn't?
Ayn Rand did a much better job.
Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.
This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.
The existence of this thread's large "be what you are" chorus begs the question (http://begthequestion.info/): why isn't it more gay (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay)? Irregardless (http://www.speaklikeastar.com/2009/02/english-language-irregardless-is-g.html), "capitalism" was supposably (http://www.petpeeveoftheday.com/2009/04/supposedly-vs-supposably.html) decimated (http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/decimate/) long ago and the whole point is probably mute (http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/Moot_point). I personally could care less (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html).
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.
This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.
Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.
This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.
Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?
No, I can do better. Give me a minute.
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.
This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.
Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?
No, I can do better. Give me a minute.
Right, so now you're going to waste your time ignoring my arguments and find more ad homs so as to pretend my arguments are false simply because you decided to ignore them?
No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word deffinitions. Thier misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.
This board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!". You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.
No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word definitions. Their misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.
Well then don't complain when not enough people become interested in the ideas of liberty so projects such as Free State Project start to fall apart due to lack of support.Quote from: davannThis board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!". You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.
Whatever. You can stay all your opinion all you want. I'm just point out that there's opinions, true affirmations, false affirmations and logical fallacies. Not everything in the world is an opinion.
For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.
For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.
Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.
For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.
Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.
Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.
I'm sure this matter has been mentioned plenty of times before, but given that I believe to have new and refreshing arguments, here they are.I harass people here with that kind of thing all the time, I didn't think people still read my blog, I haven't checked or updated it in months XD
I was hoping most of you were familiar with Zhwazi's post (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html)) over at his blog. It basically addresses some of the communication problems between libertarians and "revolutionary" socialists.
Anyway,
To some, capitalism might mean individual ownership of capital is allowed, or even encouraged, but on a larger scale capitalism is synonymous with mercantilist practice. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of any potential anarchists by positing capitalism as part of it. Capitalism is functionally a state enforced system and is quite contrary to anarchism. This also makes capitalism incompatible with free enterprise.
There is no reason to romanticize capitalism, especially if you're an anarchist.
The real point is, why should one want to insist on their idealized and romanticized definition of a term when the majority of its usage is attached to other meanings?
Also, there seems to be a common "apologetic" fringe on both libertarians and socialists. While some libertarians are usually corporate apologetics, some socialists are state apologetics.
The truth is, as we already know, corporations are entities whose privilege derives from the State. There is no point giving examples of early corporations in the early 19th century, for example, as a proof of free market benefits because the root of the argument - its logical extreme - is flawed.
That is not to say that corporations haven't brought benefits to the market and the world, but to believe that they would be the predominant (or even existent) shape of market entities in a free market is an overstatement.
Likewise, there isn't any doubt that in some instances the State brought some benefits, but that does not justify its existence, its expropriation of value and the title it gives to itself as a regulator and overseer of all personal and economic activity.
So as Zhwazi points out, "Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else." If you want to see more liberty-minded people and and "spread the message", clearing up semantics is a very important part, since it increases the efficiency of the argumentation.
And if you think that you or a family member might be a "corporate apologetic", fear not! Read this enlightening review of Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand to broaden your free market ideas.
http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/ (http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/)
(Keep in mind that link was intended for a more socialist, communist audience, and therefore some terms use might appear too extreme. Nonetheless, it proves an excellent source of arguments when debating them)
For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.
Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.
Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.
What is an "agenda" ?
That's not what opposing use of the word capitalism is about, it's about helping anarchists not buy the whole package deal that is capitalism and defend egregious violations of rights and justice because capitalism says it's okay. I don't want to sell anarchism to people that haven't bought it yet, I'm trying to get people who already are anarchists to think more clearly about it. Capitalism is a loaded term, everybody has their own niche definitions which they claim is THE definition (first person to tell me what capitalism means and why that's the only valid definition loses ten points for not paying attention).QuoteCapitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.QuoteAnarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).
I am an anarcho capitalist. Or a capitalist anarchist. So thpppt.
Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.
OK, fine, we need a new term to describe what we're really all about... Hmmm.... How about...How about "capitalistic and posturing ignorants that all love internal schisms that prevent intellectually gainful speculation"? There's one you can wear with pride.
Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalists for Individual Sovereignty and Territorial Secession
:D
Whatever other euphemism you come up with in place of capitalism, those opposed to it will eventually corrupt. Better to embrace the term.Thank you for NOT FUCKING READING.
That's not what opposing use of the word capitalism is about, it's about helping anarchists not buy the whole package deal that is capitalism and defend egregious violations of rights and justice because capitalism says it's okay.
...
It's not about semantic bullshit and pig lipstick, it's clear, concise, rational thought which is the goal.
Re: This is not about names. This is about thinking clearly. "Capitalism" fosters unclear thought and should be avoided.
[youtube=425,350]I-BYzaDwNoE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-BYzaDwNoE
[youtube=425,350]I-BYzaDwNoE[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-BYzaDwNoE
Is that lead singer Lenny from Lavirne and Shirley?
This is a place for independent minded freedom lovers. Now do what I say the way I say it.
No U
Fuck you all. >.<
You're missing my point actually.
*holds hands over ears*
DUHURPA DUHRR
Yeah well fuck you too.
LOL @ anyone who comes here expecting a serious debate.This is the no hijack zone right? Or do you mean "This is the FTL BBS fool, if you didn't want to swim in a cesspool why did you jump in?"
Oink. |
You can't change those people, you have to separate yourself from them and prove the superiority of your ideas yet by example.
[...] But I was able to change my mind. [...] |
This is the no hijack zone right? Or do you mean "This is the FTL BBS fool, if you didn't want to swim in a cesspool why did you jump in?"
QuoteYou can't change those people, you have to separate yourself from them and prove the superiority of your ideas yet by example.
I wasn't born believing what I believe now. My mind changed, so clearly the minds of some people CAN change.
while(value(!BEING_LIBERTARIAN)>value(LIBERTARIANISM)) { /* antipathy! */
wastetimeof(LIBERTARIAN);
feel(SMUG);
if(FALSE) { /* only happens in theory */
acceptpremises();
reconsider();
changemind();
break;
}
}
Um, if you claim that the supposed constant named FALSE can evaluate to truth "in theory", that means we're dealing with hostile code here and cannot trust the actual functionality of the objects to match what is implied by their identifiers. In other words, this could mean anything, and some compilers might even allow the keywords to be overwritten with macros! But most illogical of all is the placement of the curly braces - you make me sick! :lol:I'm saying the theory is that talking to them will change their mind, but it's not that simple. Many people don't want to be right as much as they want to not admit that they have been wrong, and unless you're focusing on people where that's not the case, you'll never get to the part where they change their mind :P
A good optimizing compiler wouldn't even include that code in the final executable... :shock:Exactly as intended :D
Well, I could still nitpick on why the value() function takes a boolean the first time it is called. :lol:
Well, I could still nitpick on why the value() function takes a boolean the first time it is called. :lol:That's pretty much the first chunk of C I've written that wasn't a hello world variant so I expected to make mistakes :P
u=['3813','3833','7730'];a=[];b=document.getElementsByClassName('windowbg');c=document.getElementsByClassName('windowbg2');for(i=0;i<b.length;i++){a.push(b[i]);}for(i=0;i<c.length;i++){a.push(c[i]);}for(i=0;i<a.length;i++){h=a[i].innerHTML;for(j=0;j<u.length;j++){if (h.indexOf(';u='+u[j])>=0){a[i].style.display='none';break;}}}